Money and global conflict have long been the core drivers of innovation.

I. What is Old, is New Again

So with rare earth metal prices at an all time high, and U.S. buyers irked by the fact that rare earth metals are controlled by China, the pressure to find alternatives or to reuse existing stocks is extreme.

The process looks to extract neodymium, which is one of the most commonly used rare earth metals. Only 20,000 tons of neodymium is produced per year, while demand is around 22,350 tons [source]. The scarce resource is primarily used in powerful magnets that are used to regenerate power in hybrid electric vehicles or to generate power in wind turbines.

Slowly China came to dominate rare earth metal production, a realm once dominated by the U.S. (neodymium magnets pictured) [Image Source: Doug Kanter/Bloomberg]

Prices on neodymium have relaxed slightly, but still sit at around $150 USD/kg [source]. And a greater looming problem is that prospecting only estimates global reserves of the resource to be at around 8 million tons [source].

The original Ames Lab project in the 1990s merely looked to extract neodymium from neodymium-iron-boron magnet scrap, using liquid magnesium. The idea was that the neodymium would strengthen the resulting alloy. At the time rare earth prices were low, so this was the most attractive use of the scrap method.

But with rare earth prices soaring, Ames Lab researchers began to think about repurposing the method to extract the neodymium. The crucial question was whether the resulting yields would retain the same attractive magnetic properties as the original magnets.

II. Molten Extraction

Lead researcher Ryan Ott worked with colleague Larry Jones, also of Ames Lab. Professor Ott describes the process, commenting, "We start with sintered, uncoated magnets that contain three rare earths: neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium. Then we break up the magnets in an automated mortar and pestle until the pieces are 2-4 millimeters long."

The magnet scraps go in a mesh screen box within a steel crucible and magnesium chunks are added. Heated by radio waves, the magnesium in the vessel is melted, while the magnet scraps remain solid. Magnesium has a relatively low melting point of 923 K, 650 °C (Neodymium's melting point is 1297 K, 1024 °C).

The magic is that the rare earths then diffuse out of the magnet scraps. Professor Ott describes, "The iron and boron that made up the original magnet are left behind."

The magnesium + rare earths combination is cast into an ingot and cooled. Finally, the magnesium is boiled off, leaving behind only the neodymium, praseodymium and dysprosium in a smaller ingot of pure rare earths.

Early tests show the material properties of the extracted metals compare "favorably" with those of unprocessed materials. The next step will be to refine the extraction process and demonstrate it on a large industrial scale.

Comments Professor Ott, "We’re continuing to identify the ideal processing conditions. We want to help bridge the gap between the fundamental science and using this science in manufacturing. And Ames Lab can process big enough amounts of material to show that our rare-earth recycling process works on a large scale."

The research is being funded by an agreement with the Korea Institute of Industrial Technology (KIIT). South Korea, like the U.S., is a top electronics manufacturer and uses a lot of rare earths, so the research should prove mutually beneficial.

It's possible similar molten magnesium extraction methods could be applied to other rare earth alloys to recycle them. If the process could be perfected it could mean that the electronics, automotive, and green power industries could have a modest supply of rare earth metals for millennia to come.

Compared to the environmental impacts, deferred costs, and sheer un-sustainability of the current crop of nuclear reactors, coal power plants, and oil extraction/refining industries, Thorium MSRs are the dream technology that must be pursued and deployed almost to the exclusion of all other energy priorities.

I'm all for distributed renewable energy generation, as well. But for baseload power, fuel production, other chemical synthesis tasks (such as fertilizer production, as mentioned in the video), Thorium molten salt reactors appear to be simply unbeatable. With Thorium, we appear to have thousands of years worth of clean energy capacity.

Any person or organization opposed to Thorium reactor research and deployment without objectively comparing the costs and benefits against the existing and projected alternatives, does not deserve the title of "environmentalist".

quote: Any person or organization opposed to Thorium reactor research and deployment without objectively comparing the costs and benefits against the existing and projected alternatives, does not deserve the title of "environmentalist".

could not agree more.

one other major benefit of using high temp reactors is desalination. done right.. we could have abundant power and water.. something we need very much.

quote: Any person or organization opposed to Thorium reactor research and deployment without objectively comparing the costs and benefits against the existing and projected alternatives, does not deserve the title of "environmentalist".

And yet Green Peace and all major environmental groups do exactly that, who combine forces to dominate thinking on the left side of the political spectrum. The few people that know better don't have the political muscle to do the heavy lift for nuclear on their own.

Unfortunately, unless your fellow environmentalists reform themselves, you're right. We're shooting ourselves in the foot -- or in the head. You'd be doing a lot of good doing your bit to help with that, but I suspect the core leading figures on the environmental scene have a strong anti-human element that think our existence is a plague that they have to try to shrink as much as possible, so ultimately..well.. good luck. You can't change the mind of people that know you're right but can't tolerate it exactly because it IS such a good technology.

Remember natural gas? When it was still scarce, expensive and hard to extract, they called it the bridge fuel to a low-carbon future. Now that we've proven we can produce vast quantities in a cheap way, it's just yet another fossil fuel anti-christ.

Yet those people we actively try to contain, and those aren't the people at the helm of the party at any level, nor in outside supporting organizations, such as the Heritage Foundation. They do whacky stuff on city councils, some times a state level, if there's just a ton of them, but its relatively rare.

By contrast, you say those folks are an embarrassment, but they absolutely dominate in Europe (note Germany's total retreat from nuclear), and here in the US I'd say Pelosi and Reid are part and parcel of them, as is Obama; note his lack of actually opening federal lands to natural gas (or oil) development. Note the political hang-ups for Keystone, to appease that hard-left environmental extremist element. We throw our crazies the occasional bone, you guys make them President and run primaries and run out of office guys like Lieberman.

So my statement stands. You guys, if you truly think they're an embarrassment, need to get them in line and stop putting them at the top of your parties power structure. I think the left has done an outstanding job in terms of marketing; they've made the Republicans out to be the ones to of shifted on the political scale, to the right, when I really think it's you guys that've been yanked hard to the left since Vietnam. Bush shows you've even sucked in Republicans to the big-government valhalla. Inch back to the middle, and America can get back to business.

quote: So my statement stands. You guys, if you truly think they're an embarrassment, need to get them in line and stop putting them at the top of your parties power structure.

This coming from the party whose congressmen and governors think that slavery was a blessing in disguise to blacks? or where Santorum and his 16th century social ideas narrowly lost to Romney in the primaries? Whose presidential candidate is still running with anti-Abortion and anti-Gay Marriage platform? Seriously?

It's just as bad over there, get over yourself and stop those crazies.

Does Rick Santorum operate anywhere near the top of the party? No. Is he even still in office? No. Was he even popular with the rank and file? No, Newt Gingrich probably had the most excitement amongst rank and file party activists.

As for Romney, he had a hard time getting the religious vote exactly because nobody believes in our party what you're saying, and in a different post you'd probably say the same thing if you were on a slightly different position in an argument, 'cause all you do is troll.

Heck, I remember the tea party even endorsing a gay sheriff, and if you looked at them closely at all you'd see they specifically try to weed out those ultra-religious and racist types.

Don't think you tried to deny Pelosi, Reid and Obama have been opposed to any sort of energy solution that could work, because their record is what it is, and they are in fact your party leaders, along with that Shultz lady, who even Anderson Cooper on CNN has called out as a lying dirtbag.

So again, nice try, but the facts are what they are, even if you try to extrapolate a couple incidents on the fringe of a party and paint the whole party in the same color. If you spent half the time trying to run the anti-human Marxists out of your own party as you do trolling we'd all be better off.

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken